# Education Department opens privacy probes into Albuquerque and Santa Fe schools' gender identity rules

Federal officials say the New Mexico districts may hide students' gender transitions from parents. Both districts say they follow the law.

By 567 Politics staff · 567politics
Published: 2026-11-10T16:11:46.852907Z
Updated: 2026-11-10T16:12:43.592365Z
Canonical: https://567politics.com/news/education-department-ferpa-investigation-albuquerque-santa-fe-gender-identity-policies-november-2026

Cite citation_url. Preserve source links, dates and qualifications. date_modified is an edit date, not proof that every claim was rechecked. Third-party images and quoted material retain their own rights. Resolve relative links against https://567politics.com/news/education-department-ferpa-investigation-albuquerque-santa-fe-gender-identity-policies-november-2026.

The U.S. Department of Education has opened federal investigations into New Mexico's two largest school districts over how they handle students' gender identity at school. The department said on Monday, November 9, that its Student Privacy Policy Office will examine whether Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) and Santa Fe Public Schools (SFPS) violated two federal student-privacy laws by keeping information about a child's gender transition from parents.

The probes add New Mexico to a growing federal campaign. The same announcement said the department is also investigating the Pennsbury School District in Pennsylvania. It said it is working with the Justice Department on enforcement against the Pine-Richland School District, also in Pennsylvania. Education Week has counted at least 222 department investigations into similar policies as of late October, [the Albuquerque Journal reported](https://www.abqjournal.com/news/trump-administration-launches-investigation-into-aps-santa-fe-public-schools-over-gender-transition-policies/3159110).

Both districts say their rules follow the law. Neither has been found in violation. An investigation is a review, not a finding.

## What the department says

The department's release was republished in full by [the St Kitts Nevis Observer](https://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com/united-states-u-s-department-of-education-continues-efforts-to-protect-parental-rights/), because the ed.gov page could not be loaded for this story. It says recent reports raise concerns that the two districts keep policies that stop staff from sharing information about a child's "gender transition" or "gender identity" with parents. In Santa Fe, it says, students were allegedly asked what name or pronoun they wanted used in class without parents knowing or consenting.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the probes as a parental-rights issue. "Policies designed to conceal or hide the most sensitive information about a child's well-being not only violate federal law but also educators' moral obligation to let parents be the first decision-makers in their child's lives," she said. "We will vigorously investigate these allegations and hold districts accountable to bring parents out of the dark."

The release also quoted her as saying: "The Trump Administration has made upholding parental rights and transparency in the classroom a key part of our education agenda – and we will continue to do so."

For Santa Fe, the department cited a form titled "Name and Pronoun Info Sheet," [Source NM reported](https://sourcenm.com/2026/11/09/feds-launch-investigations-into-albuquerque-santa-fe-schools-gender-identity-policies/). The department says the form states that the teacher will keep students' answers confidential from parents. For Albuquerque, it alleged that a district social worker was "prevented from sharing 'gender identity' information with parents." [KOB-TV reported](https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/feds-investigate-gender-identity-policies-at-new-mexico-school-districts/) that the districts could lose federal funding if they are found in violation and do not comply.

## The two federal laws

The department is relying on two statutes. Both are decades old, and neither mentions gender identity.

The first is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. It gives parents the right to inspect and review their child's education records. Under [20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1232g), schools that take federal money cannot deny parents that right. The open question is which files count as "education records." A preferred name kept in a teacher's notes or a support plan may or may not qualify, depending on how it is kept.

The second is the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, or PPRA. Under [20 U.S.C. § 1232h(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1232h), schools need parental consent before a minor student takes part in certain federally funded surveys. The law lists eight sensitive topics. They include "sex behavior or attitudes" and "mental or psychological problems of the student or the student's family." The release did not say which part of either law each district is alleged to have broken.

## What the districts say

APS spokesperson Martin Salazar gave a short reply. "APS policies and procedures adhere to FERPA guidelines," he said, according to the Albuquerque Journal. "We have been notified of the investigation and will respond through the appropriate channels."

SFPS spokesperson Tara Melton said the district had not been contacted by the department as of Monday afternoon, the Albuquerque Journal reported. Should it receive an official inquiry, she said, officials will "respond appropriately and cooperate with the process." She also said the district requires parental involvement and consent before a student's name or gender marker is changed in its official student information system.

That point matters to the legal question. If a district's formal records always reflect what parents have approved, it can argue that it hides nothing in the records FERPA covers. The department's complaint is broader. It is about what staff say, or do not say, to parents in daily school life.

## The Albuquerque policy

The APS rule at issue is known as procedural directive PJ30. Its [posted text](https://www.aps.edu/about-us/policies-and-procedures/procedural-directives/j.-students/non-discrimination-for-students-gender-identity-and-expression) covers non-discrimination for students on gender identity and expression.

PJ30 says students may decide "when, with whom, and how much to share private information" about their gender identity. When staff contact a parent, the directive says they should use the student's legal name and the pronoun linked to the student's sex at birth "unless the student or parent/legal guardian has specified otherwise." Inside the school, a preferred name may be used in internal records.

Advocates say rules like these protect students who may have unsafe home environments, the Albuquerque Journal reported. The department and the parents' groups behind recent complaints say they leave parents in the dark.

### A lawsuit already pending

APS was already facing a federal lawsuit over PJ30. The case, [Martinez v. Albuquerque Public Schools](https://libertycenter.org/cases/martinez-v-albuquerque-public-schools/), was filed on September 17, 2026, by the Center for American Liberty, a conservative nonprofit legal group. The plaintiff, Jeanette Martinez, is a licensed clinical social worker at Atrisco Heritage Academy High School. According to the group, the suit alleges that PJ30 bars staff from telling parents about a child's transition even when a parent asks directly. Martinez asked in April for a religious accommodation, and APS denied it, the group says. The complaint raises claims of viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech and violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

"Any policy that forces teachers and staff to deceive parents and conceal information from them is not only unacceptable but unconstitutional," the group's chief executive, Mark Trammell, said when the suit was filed. The district has not been found liable, and the case is at an early stage.

## The Santa Fe guidance

Santa Fe revised its own guidance on August 20, 2026. The change requires a parent to take part before a formal Gender Support Plan is put in place. Under the amended guidance, a parent must take part when a student wants a preferred name or gender marker entered into the district's PowerSchool system, [the New Mexico Sentinel reported](https://www.nmsentinel.com/2026/08/25/santa-fe-schools-now-require-parent-involvement-in-gender-support-plans-but-limits-remain/). Staff must still use a student's requested name and pronouns in daily interactions, with or without a formal plan. [The Santa Fe New Mexican](https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/feds-investigating-santa-fe-albuquerque-public-schools-over-gender-identity-policies/article_312a1ec4-6592-4291-b1cb-e03aab033359.html) has also covered the federal probe.

Not every parent was satisfied. Santa Fe mother Kristy Ojinaga told the Sentinel the change was "a step forward, but it doesn't fix the fundamental problem." Letting staff use a new name and pronouns without a parent, she said, is "a loophole big enough to keep parents in the dark about what is happening with their own child." The department's reference to the pronoun sheet suggests that informal practices, not just formal plans, are part of its review.

## The legal backdrop

The probes come as courts give mixed signals on the issue.

In March, the Supreme Court acted on an emergency application in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case over California's rules. In a short unsigned order on March 2, 2026, in case 25A810, the court granted the application as to the parents and otherwise denied it. Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied it in full. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The order was not a final ruling on the merits.

On April 20, 2026, the court declined to hear Foote v. Ludlow, a Massachusetts case in which parents challenged a school's social-transition practices. Turning down a case sets no national rule. It leaves lower-court rulings in place.

Advocates for transgender students read the stakes differently. After the Mirabelli order, Shannon Minter, legal director of the [National Center for LGBTQ Rights](https://www.nclrights.org/about-us/press-release/supreme-court-blocks-california-law-protecting-transgender-students/), said schools adopted such privacy protections "because for some students, being outed at home means abuse, rejection, or worse."

The department has also pressed states directly. On October 5, 2026, the Education and Justice departments sent letters to all state attorneys general. The letters raised "concerns about their school districts' lack of compliance with these federal laws regarding mental health screenings conducted in schools," Source NM reported. New Mexico's attorney general's office confirmed it had received the letter.

## How this fits the wider fight

The New Mexico probes are one front in a broad national fight over gender identity policy. The federal government has moved on several fronts at once. They include [an HHS rule under Section 504 on gender dysphoria](https://567politics.com/news/hhs-section-504-gender-dysphoria-final-rule-federal-register-november-2026) and [a challenge over Medicaid coverage of gender care](https://567politics.com/news/goe-v-hhs-medicaid-gender-care-rule-new-hampshire-mcauliffe-november-2026).

Voters and courts have been active too. This month's elections included [ballot measures on transgender athletes in four states](https://567politics.com/news/transgender-school-sports-ballot-measures-arizona-colorado-nebraska-washington-november-2026), followed by [legal fights over Washington's I-638 and Colorado's measures](https://567politics.com/news/washington-i-638-lawsuit-colorado-prop-134-135-rewrite-transgender-sports-measures-november-2026). The Supreme Court also recently [sent back a case on transgender jail housing](https://567politics.com/news/supreme-court-roybal-v-griffith-transgender-jail-housing-remand-november-2026). In Alabama, [a library board rule on transgender books](https://567politics.com/news/alabama-library-board-transgender-books-rule-lawsuit-wahl-november-2026) has drawn a lawsuit.

## The core disagreement

The dispute turns on two goals that can pull against each other.

One side stresses parents' rights. It holds that parents have a legal and moral right to know about major decisions involving their children, including a social transition at school. On this view, a school that uses a new name at school but the old one when calling home is misleading parents. Federal privacy law, the department argues, backs that view.

The other side stresses student safety and privacy. It holds that some students face real harm if their gender identity is disclosed at home before they are ready. On this view, schools should let students decide when to tell their families, while still following the law on official records.

A middle position also exists in practice. Santa Fe's revised guidance requires parents for formal support plans while leaving some daily practices in place. The district says its rules reflect "the essential role parents and guardians play." Ojinaga's response shows that, for some parents, that approach does not go far enough.

## The review timeline and the pending lawsuit

The department has not said how long the reviews will take or what remedies it will seek. An investigation can end with no finding, a negotiated change or, in the department's account, enforcement action like the one it is pursuing with the Justice Department in Pine-Richland.

APS will also have to answer in federal court in the Martinez case. Both districts' school boards may face pressure to revisit their rules before the department rules. Last month, about a dozen people spoke at a Santa Fe school board meeting against district policies on student gender and sex education, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported, according to the Albuquerque Journal.